Credibility of the Gospels
Evidence for the First Four Books of the New Testament
The first four books of the canonical New Testament are the books we know as the Gospels. They are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. All four of the Gospels purport to cover the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, the central figure of Christianity.
Assessing the credibility of the Gospels requires an understanding of who wrote the Gospels, when the Gospels were written, and whether their content has been affirmed or challenged by other sources.
When Were the Gospels Written?
Jesus was crucified no earlier than AD 30 (probably AD 33) and everyone agrees that all four of the canonical Gospels were written after Jesus’ crucifixion. The outer limit dates vary from Gospel to Gospel. The following facts provide some helpful clues in fixing the time frame for their authorship:
- The earliest external reference to the Gospel of Mark is Papias, dated to AD 130.
- Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, makes indirect references to the Gospel of Matthew as early as AD 110.
- Polycarp, a famous early church leader, quotes Acts (as well as several other New Testament books) in a letter dated to about A.D. 110. If Luke and Acts are a two-volume set written by the same author (and most conservative scholars and many moderate scholars believe this), then this puts the Gospel of Luke earlier than A.D. 110.
- A papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John (containing portions of John 18) has been dated to between A.D. 110 and 160, thus confirming (beyond all doubt) that John was written no later than A.D. 160.
- The Muratorian Canon (c. A.D. 180-200) lists all four of the Gospels as authoritative for the early church.
The above facts all serve to reinforce scholarly consensus that the Gospels were written sometime between the third decade of the first century and the middle of the second century.
Who Wrote the Gospels?
The Gospels themselves are formally anonymous. Nevertheless, some deference should be given to those who lived during or close to the time period in which the Gospels were written. And it is due to these individuals, who lived near the area of the books' composition, that traditional attribution to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John was made.
- Gospel of Matthew - The strongest evidence attesting to Matthew’s authorship is the fact that four ancient sources (Papias of Asia Minor, Irenaeus of Gaul, Pantaenus, and Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea) specifically attribute the Gospel to Matthew, the disciple of Jesus.
- Gospel of Mark - Early church figures, including Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Jerome of Palestine all attribute Mark's Gospel to Mark. There's little reason to believe the early church would falsely attribute this Gospel to Mark, who was a second-tier church figure at best.
- Gospel of Luke - Evidence associating Luke with his Gospel (as well as the book of Acts) includes the Muratorian Canon (c. A.D. 180-200) as well as the writings of Irenaeus, Clement, and famed early church historian Eusebius.
- Gospel of John - The evidence is thinner for John than the others, but Irenaeus and Polycarp (according to Eusebius) both attribute the fourth Gospel to John.
If these attributions are correct, then the dates for the Gospels shift to an earlier time frame, since Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not live into the second century (though there is some speculation that John may have come close).
Responding to the Critics
Critics often contend the Gospels were modified or changed by agenda-driven editors. This was certainly the case with many of the copies, but the sheer multiplicity of manuscript copies makes a widespread, successful conspiracy to change the Gospels virtually impossible. Given the volume of copies (and the early date of many of those copies), the modern reader can trust that the preserved Gospels reflect the originals.
Other critics say we cannot trust early church attribution. While false attribution was not unheard of in the early Christian community (the Gospel of Thomas, not part of the canon, is an example of this), it is unfair for biblical critics to simply make the assumption that the canonical Gospels were misattributed and shift the burden of proof to those who hold to traditional authorship.
Another criticism rests on the bias of anti-supernaturalism. Since the Gospels contain miraculous episodes and prophecies, they are considered untrustworthy. This is a philosophical decision to reject the Gospels, however, not a scholarly one.
If one sets aside these unfair biases against the Gospels, the more radical critique of the Gospels' credibility collapses.
The bottom line is that, measured against any fair and balanced examination of ancient history, the four Gospel accounts of Jesus of Nazareth are credible.
*****
Sources for this article included:
Article: "Gospels, the external evidence and dating" by Bernard D. Muller
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
Is the New Testament Reliable? by Paul Barnett
Latest Articles